Rolando De Roca Vs. Eduardo C. Dabuyan, et al.

G.R. No. 215281. March 5, 2018

FACTS: Filed a complaint6 for illegal dismissal against "RAF Mansion Hotel Oki Management and New
Management and Victoriano Ewayan." Later, private respondents amended the complaint included
petitioner Rolando De Roca as [co]-respondent. Summons was sent through registered mail to petitioner
but it was return.

On 18 April 2018, private respondents submitted a position paper. On the same day, petitioner filed his
motion to dismiss7 on the grmmd oflack of jurisdiction. He alleged that while he [was] the owner of RAF
Mansion Hotel building, the same [was being] leased by Victoriano Ewayan, the owner of Oceanics Travel
and Tour Agency. Petitioner claims that Ewayan was the employer of private respondents. Consequently,
he asserted that there was no employer-employee relationship between him and private respondents and
the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction.

On 29 June 2012, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision directing petitioner, among others, to pay
backwages and other monetary award to private respondents. ln said decision, the labor arbiter also
denied the motion to dismiss for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioner received
a copy of the decision on 3 August 2012.

On 4 September 2012, petitioner filed a petition for annulment of judgment on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction before the NLRC. However, the petition was dismissed because it was also filed beyond the
period allowed by the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. Petitioner sought reconsideration but the same was
also denied.

ISSUE: Petitioner submits before this Honorable Court that the Court of Appeals erred in affoming the
findings of both the labor arbiter and the NLRC and in concluding that they did not abuse their discretion
and acted beyond their jurisdiction when they asserted their authorities and found petitioner DE ROCA
solidarily liable with EWA YAN/ OCEANIC TRAVEL AND TOUR AGENCY to private respondents, despite the
patent lack of employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and private respondents.

HELD: All throughout the proceedings, petitioner has insisted that he was not the employer of
respondents; that he did not hire the respondents, nor pay their salaries, nor exercise supervision or
control over them, nor did he have the power to terminate their services. In support of his claim, he
attached copies of a lease agreement - a Contract of Lease of a Building20 -executed by him and Oceanic
Tours and Travel Agency (Oceanic) represented by Ewayan through his attomey-in-fact Marilou Buenafe.
The agreement would show that petitioner was the owner of a building called the RAF Mansion Hotel in
Roxas Boulevard, Baclaran, Parafiaque City; that on September 25, 2007, Oceanic agreed to lease the
entire premises of RAF Mansion Hotel, including the elevator, water pump, airconditioning units, and
existing furnishings and all items found in the hotel and included in the inventory list attached to the lease
agreement, except for certain portions of the building where petitioner conducted his personal business
and which were leased out to other occupants, including a bank; that the lease would be for a period of
five years, or from October 15, 2007 up to October 15, 2012; that the monthly rental would be
P450,000.00; and that all expenses, utilities, maintenance, and taxes -except real property truces -
incurred and due on the leased building would be for the lessee's account.
“Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs, except in case where the lights
and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by
provision of law." The contract of employment between respondents, on the one hand, and Oceanic and
Ewayan on the other, is effective only between them; it does not extend to petitioner, who is not a party
thereto. His only role is as lessor of the premises which Oceanic leased to operate as a hotel; he cannot
be deemed as respondent's employer -not even under the pretext that he took over as the "new
management" of the hotel operated by Oceanic. There simply is no truth to such claim.